Inferences and Indirectness in Interaction

I explore some of the interconnections between inferences that participants make about one another’s (verbal) conduct, the implications they attribute to prior turns at talk, and the indirectness with which recipients may respond to enquiries - in short, the interconnections between inference, impli...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Drew Paul
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: De Gruyter 2018-08-01
Series:Open Linguistics
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0013
id doaj-802f5f4552234faca453e929a576d185
record_format Article
spelling doaj-802f5f4552234faca453e929a576d1852021-10-02T19:15:50ZengDe GruyterOpen Linguistics2300-99692018-08-014124125910.1515/opli-2018-0013opli-2018-0013Inferences and Indirectness in InteractionDrew Paul0University of York,York, UKI explore some of the interconnections between inferences that participants make about one another’s (verbal) conduct, the implications they attribute to prior turns at talk, and the indirectness with which recipients may respond to enquiries - in short, the interconnections between inference, implication and indirectness. These are explored in the context of naturally occurring conversations (UK and US), from the methodological perspective of Conversation Analysis. Because inference has come to be associated closely with Grice’s concept of implicature, I begin by setting out my reasons for not following Grice’s path, preferring instead to revert to ‘implication’, namely the implication that a recipient finds in and attributes to a prior turn. My purpose here is to avoid the cognitive conceptualisation of speakers’ intentions that Grice supposed are associated with implicature. I argue that inference features in the understanding of and response to all turns at talk; it is not restricted to some special kind of utterance, as seems to be conveyed in Grice’s conceptualisation. The inferences that recipients make are evident in cases in which they respond not to what the prior speaker asked ‘literally,’ but to the inferred agenda of an enquiry. Moreover, recipients may respond indirectly to prior enquiries, thereby ‘side-stepping’ implications they attribute to those enquiries. In various ways, inference and indirection may on occasions be associated with practices for avoidance in conversation.https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0013inferenceimplicatureconversation analysis
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Drew Paul
spellingShingle Drew Paul
Inferences and Indirectness in Interaction
Open Linguistics
inference
implicature
conversation analysis
author_facet Drew Paul
author_sort Drew Paul
title Inferences and Indirectness in Interaction
title_short Inferences and Indirectness in Interaction
title_full Inferences and Indirectness in Interaction
title_fullStr Inferences and Indirectness in Interaction
title_full_unstemmed Inferences and Indirectness in Interaction
title_sort inferences and indirectness in interaction
publisher De Gruyter
series Open Linguistics
issn 2300-9969
publishDate 2018-08-01
description I explore some of the interconnections between inferences that participants make about one another’s (verbal) conduct, the implications they attribute to prior turns at talk, and the indirectness with which recipients may respond to enquiries - in short, the interconnections between inference, implication and indirectness. These are explored in the context of naturally occurring conversations (UK and US), from the methodological perspective of Conversation Analysis. Because inference has come to be associated closely with Grice’s concept of implicature, I begin by setting out my reasons for not following Grice’s path, preferring instead to revert to ‘implication’, namely the implication that a recipient finds in and attributes to a prior turn. My purpose here is to avoid the cognitive conceptualisation of speakers’ intentions that Grice supposed are associated with implicature. I argue that inference features in the understanding of and response to all turns at talk; it is not restricted to some special kind of utterance, as seems to be conveyed in Grice’s conceptualisation. The inferences that recipients make are evident in cases in which they respond not to what the prior speaker asked ‘literally,’ but to the inferred agenda of an enquiry. Moreover, recipients may respond indirectly to prior enquiries, thereby ‘side-stepping’ implications they attribute to those enquiries. In various ways, inference and indirection may on occasions be associated with practices for avoidance in conversation.
topic inference
implicature
conversation analysis
url https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0013
work_keys_str_mv AT drewpaul inferencesandindirectnessininteraction
_version_ 1716847521909702656